ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER M.S. KARNIK, J.]:

1. The challenge in this petition is to the order of detention bearing D.O. No. 04/CB/BM-EC/2025 dated 14th April, 2025 issued under section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (for short “MPDA Act”) by respondent No.1 – Commissioner of Police, Solapur.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that Senior Inspector of Police, Salgarwasti Police Station, Solapur submitted a proposal on 10th March, 2025 for detention of petitioner - Haridas Shankar Gaikwad under the MPDA Act to the Commissioner of Police, Solapur. Respondent No.1 – Commissioner of Police, Solapur and the Detaining Authority carefully considered and scrutinized the material placed before it and was subjectively satisfied that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Respondent No.1 was satisfied that the petitioner is a dangerous person within the meaning of the MPDA Act. The respondent No.1 was further satisfied that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and it was necessary to detain him under the MPDA Act with a view to prevent him from acting in such manner in future. Respondent No.1 – Detaining Authority was satisfied from the material on which reliance is placed by him that the detention order needs to be made. The said material included the statements of in camera witnesses. The detention order

was served on the detenu on 14th April, 2025. A report under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the MPDA Act was sent to the Government of Maharashtra on 15th April, 2025 by email. The State Government approved the order of detention on 23rd April, 2025 and confirmed the said order of detention on 22nd May, 2025.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the grounds (e) and (f) of the memo of petition in support of her submission. The said grounds read as under;

“(e) The petitioner says and submits that criminal prosecution and the basis of detention order is C.R no.67/2025 u/Sec. 287, 288 IPC r/w Sec 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955 dated 03.02.2025. The petitioner was arrested and granted bail by the Competent Court of law after considering the facts and circumstances of the said case, and on certain terms and conditions on the same day I.e on 07.03.2025. The petitioner further submits that the detaining authority ought to have examined whether the said conditions granting bail were sufficient or not to curb further indulgence of the petitioner in his prejudicial activities, the order of detention is completely silent on this aspect. And secondly, the detaining authority has failed to record his subjective satisfaction as to why the said terms and conditions on which the petitioner was granted bail, were sufficient or not to restrain the him from indulging in further prejudicial activities, and therefore the issuance of a detention order against the petitioner. This particular view is taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.16893 of 2024) Joyi Kitty Joseph Vs. UOI & Ors at Para 21 The criminal prosecution launched and the preventive detention ordered are on the very same allegations of organised smuggling activities, through a network set up, revealed on successive raids carried on at various locations, on specific information received, leading to recovery of huge cache of contraband. When bail was granted by the

jurisdictional Court, that too on conditions, the detaining authority ought to have examined whether they were sufficient to curb the evil of further indulgence in identical activities; which is the very basis of the preventive detention ordered. The detention order being silent on that aspect, we interfere with the detention order only on the ground of the detaining authority having not looked into the conditions imposed by the Magistrate while granting bail for the very same offence; the allegations in which also have led to the preventive detention, assail